Non-Americans: If the leader of your preferred party committed a felony would you still vote for them?

Politics & Elections
1
  • Yes, without reservation
  • Yes, it depends on …
  • No, probably not, it depends on …
  • No, absolutely not
0 voters

American’s Poll here: Non-Americans: If the leader of your preferred party committed a felony would you still vote for them? - #39 by BeepKillBeep

I’ve been trying to understand why Republicans are still supporting Trump despite being a felon. So I asked myself, “Self, if Justin Trudeau committed a similar felony would you still vote for him?” And my answer was… well no, but that’s because I have the option to vote NDP. So ok, “Self, what if Trudeau and Singh both committed similar felonies would you vote for PP?”

And my answer is … well … no. PP represents everything that I oppose politically. There is no possible way I could vote for him. Now realistically, I would expect the Liberal or NDP parties would drop Trudeau and/or Singh as party leader but I’m ignoring this. So, bottom line I kind of get it. If I’m were a Republican, and I honestly felt that Biden was everything wrong with the country, then my options really are don’t vote (I’m opposed to not voting) or vote for Trump.

So yeah, I kind of get it. And I’m curious about what other non-Americans think. Note, for the purposes of this thread the national leader will not be replaced even if that were the realistic outcome.

Now, if it were a more serious felony, say murder or rapist, then it does change. I wouldn’t vote for a murderer or a rapist. I think in that case I would spoil my ballot. There would literally be no good choices.

But then I decided to challenge myself further. What if it looked like PP was not going to win unless I voted for him? Oooo. That’s interesting. I think in that case I would vote for PP. I think have somebody with whom I don’t agree, is better than having a murderer or rapist in charge.

Anyway, any thoughts are welcome.

(Note, I’m well aware that really in Canada, we do not vote for a PM, we vote for an MP but in practice we are kind of voting for a PM)

2

I’m an American and so will not vote.

In my country, there are an enormous number of federal and state laws, and, partly as a result, most people have committed felonies. This book title is exaggerated but one felony a decade – definitely:

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

A felony conviction would be one factor in my vote – not so much because of the conviction, but because of the details of the case.

One factor is whether they have paid their debt to society by completing their sentence.

Another is the extent to which I think what they were convicted of is morally wrong. For example, I think that bribing someone to give up their first amendment rights is morally much worse than, say, retaining classified documents describing Vladimir Putin’s personality. Others will feel just the opposite.

3

If Poilievre was the only non-felonious choice on the ballot, I would spoil my ballot as well if May wasn’t on it :slight_smile:

4

I thought you do not even have the word felony in Canada. But I guess you are interpreting similar severity.

Are you in Poilievre’s riding? Or May’s riding? Or do you vote for the leader, not the MP? What about most Canadians? Do they vote for the party or the member? And what’s worse – having a crooked MP or having a law-abiding MP who supports a crooked PM? And am I asking too many questions? :grinning:

5

Do you mean committed and convicted of, or just committed?

6

I am American so I did not vote in the OP’s poll.

I will say my answer would depend on the felony. For example, Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for felonies but he was fighting an oppressive government. I suppose MAGAts somehow think Trump is also fighting the “Deep State” and thus should not be penalized at the ballot box.

We could conjure up many other felonies (maybe having a bag of pot on him when he was 20) that I would not care about…especially 40 years later. It also depends on what the alternative is.

Too many variables to say for certain.

7

Oh, I would really like a cite for that statement.

8

Will this do for the US?

Citing the work of Rutgers University law scholar Douglas Husak, Carter wrote on Dec. 4 that “70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment.” Carter noted that’s in part because there are 300,000 or more federal regulations that may be enforceable through criminal punishment.

While (probably) not a felony I was talking with a police officer (off-duty, at a bar) and he told me if he wanted to pull someone over he’d just follow them for a while. He said sooner or later everyone driving will violate some traffic law and then he can pull them over and go from there. It’s trivially easy.

9

No, that’s won’t do.
It’s pretty trivial to get put in jail. Just resist arrest at a traffic stop.
But, that’s not a felony.

10

Lots of Israelis did- at least indirectly.

wiki-
On 28 February 2019, the Israeli attorney general announced his intent to file indictments against Netanyahu on bribe and fraud charges in three different cases.[230] Netanyahu was formally indicted on 21 November 2019.[231][232][233] If Netanyahu is convicted, he could face up to 10 years in prison for bribery and a maximum of three years for fraud and breach of trust.[234][235] He is the first sitting prime minister in Israel’s history to be charged with a crime.[15] On 23 November 2019, it was announced that Netanyahu, in compliance with legal precedent set by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1993,[16] would relinquish his agriculture, health, social affairs and diaspora affairs portfolios.[16][17] The matter of forcing a prime minister to resign due to an indictment has yet to be tested in court.[16][17] He was officially charged on 28 January 2020.[236]

11

In Taiwan, voting for the opposing candidate in this context generally means voting for someone who wants to surrender Taiwan over to China, so, yes, unfortunately, I think my tolerance for felonies committed by the leader of my preferred party (assuming there is no way to primary them or get them out some other way) is going to have to be very high.

12

Carrying an eighth of marijuana? Well, that’s fine, it’s legal here in California.

Also carrying some baggies and a scale for whatever reason? Well, if you’re unlucky then you might get charged with intent to sell, which is a felony.

Just the fact of the felony is of no relevance whatsoever. The nature of the felony matters a lot.

13

I voted “absolutely not” but this makes me think that there might be some rare circumstance where I might vote for my preferred candidate anyway, but those circumstances would likely be so rare that I’ll leave my answer as is.

My reasoning is that since it’s understood and widely accepted that a criminal conviction bars the convict from most forms of employment, certainly anything with real responsibilities, bars them from entry to most countries, and in many cases they will not be considered when applying for rental properties, then I sure as hell don’t want them running my government at any level. That a convicted felon couldn’t get a job as a dog catcher but is considered eligible to be head of government (or in the US, head of the executive branch AND head of state) is one of the great ironies of our political system.

14

Then you should add something to your scenario to the effect of “and you believe witth all your heart that the felony charges are bogus, manufactured or at best inflated to the point of fiction by the baby-harvesting Satanists in the political opposition, in a sinister attempt to obstruct the coming ascension to godhood by mankind’s Orange Savior.”

15

The problem is a felony can be anything the government says it is.

In some US states a woman getting an abortion is now a felony. That was not so a few years ago.

You would have voted for the woman a few years ago when it was not a felony but now would refuse to vote for her now because it recently became a felony?

We can Godwinize it. Would you refuse to vote for someone who protected Jews because the government said that was criminal and a felony?

I am not trying to ascribe anything to you. I am merely trying to put some extreme cases out there to see where your line is drawn on not voting for someone because they are a criminal.

16

The first democratically-elected President of my country was jailed for 27 years for terrorism and treason, so I voted
“Yes, it depends on…”
Obviously not going to vote for a rapist, murderer, thief or fraudster. Doesn’t matter what the political alternative is, those are off the table.

But if they’re guilty of fighting injustice? Or for the environment? Or on drug charges?

17

No, that would be one of the clear, rare exceptions because it’s a totally asinine law that I vehemently oppose. The felons should be the hateful misogynistic legislators who enacted such a law. Whereas in contrast, all of Trump’s whining notwithstanding, what he did in this case was part of a lifelong pattern of lying, cheating, and violations of ethics and of law.

18

Just to be clear to all I agree with you on this and please do not consider me in any way defending Trump.

That said, I bet some MAGAts feel as you do but about Trump being the poor person being unfairly persecuted.

19

Maybe. I’m not entirely sure this is a bad thing. As a general concept, I think it’s reasonable to put employment restrictions on felons in the interest of public safety. But when it comes to the democratic process–and that includes the possibility of becoming an elected official–we should be far more hesitant in taking people’s rights away. Especially given the possibility of political persecution (without saying anything about the particular ase of Trump).

20

You might be surprised.

You’re hiking, and you come across a cool feather, which you pick up. Later, you glue it to a pen and sell it for a buck at a flea market.

Congratulations! You’ve probably committed a felony. By the way, violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 are strict liability crimes, so it doesn’t matter if you didn’t know about the law.